facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Defiant Clinton testifies about attack



Published: Thu, January 24, 2013 @ 12:00 a.m.

Associated Press

WASHINGTON

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered fiery rejoinders Wednesday to Republican critics of the Obama administration’s handling of the deadly attack on a U.S. mission in Benghazi, facing off with lawmakers who included potential 2016 presidential rivals.

At times emotional and frequently combative, Clinton rejected GOP suggestions in two congressional hearings that the administration tried to mislead the country about the Sept. 11 attack that killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans. She insisted the State Department is moving swiftly and aggressively to strengthen security at diplomatic posts worldwide.

In her last formal testimony before Congress as America’s top diplomat — but perhaps not her last time on the political stage — Clinton once again took responsibility for the department’s missteps and failures leading up to the assault. But she also said that requests for more security at the diplomatic mission in Benghazi didn’t reach her desk and reminded lawmakers that they have a responsibility to fund security-related budget requests.

Three weeks after her release from a New York hospital — admitted for complications after a concussion — Clinton was at times defiant, complimentary and willing to chastise lawmakers during more than 51/2 hours of testimony before two separate committees. She tangled with some who could be rivals in 2016 if she decides to seek the presidency again.

Her voice cracking at one point, Clinton said the attack and the aftermath were highly personal tragedies for the families of the victims who died — Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty — as well as herself.

Clearly annoyed with Republican complaints about the initial explanation for the attack, she rose to the defense of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who was vilified for widely debunked claims five days after the attack that protests precipitated the raid rather than terrorism.

Clinton said, “People were trying in real time to get to the best information.” And she said her own focus was on looking ahead on how to improve security rather than revisiting the talking points and Rice’s comments.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pressed her on why “we were misled that there were supposedly protests and something sprang out of that, an assault sprang out of that.”

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” she said, her voice rising and quivering with anger as she and Johnson spoke over each other.

“Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided they would go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”

Clinton and other officials have testified that requests for additional security did not reach her level, and a scathing independent review of the matter sharply criticized four senior State Department officials who have been relieved of their duties.

Later, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina repeatedly challenged Clinton’s claim to have looked at the tragedy with “clear eyes,” saying she should have personally ensured security at the mission.

Clinton said she could have let the review board’s report remain classified and told Congress “goodbye” before leaving office. But she said, it’s “not who I am. It’s not what I do.”


Comments

1excel(277 comments)posted 1 year, 5 months ago

Those who died were expendable. Hillary didn't want to offend her friends in the Muslim Brotherhood with a show of force.

Suggest removal:

2walter_sobchak(1840 comments)posted 1 year, 5 months ago

I can't believe that Hilliary Rodham, as a counselor for the Watergate hearings in 1974, would have accepted the responses she gave yesterday regarding a possible cover-up to malfeasance or misfeasance of government officials because everything, in both cases, was proecting the POTUS and his re-election efforts.

Suggest removal:

3cambridge(2957 comments)posted 1 year, 5 months ago

In a national election Hillary would destroy any of those teabaggers.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport